Why Are Almost All Pleasures Considered Sins?

[Voter]

The Young Turks did a video on, if not that study, one similar, where they basically debunked it from my perspective. I can't remember all their points, but the major one that I can remember is that people who wait until marriage to have sex don't have any benchmark or standard to go by -- besides their spouse, of course. Obviously they're going to think it's great, because it's sex...duh.

Are you purposely lobbing me a softball?

...What?

You dismissed an actual study in another thread because I only had access to the abstract. Now you offer this. Amusing.

[Voter]

I was thinking more of taking credit for the things one accomplishes when I wrote the post.  For example: if you do something good, all credit goes to God and if you do something bad all credit goes to you.  To credit yourself is committing the sin of pride, isn't it?  If you take pleasure in doing good or even believe you are doing good on your own it's a sin, right?  So, no matter how hard you work, you are only allowed to get credit for evil and never for good.  How can you take pleasure in life if you can never feel a sense of accomplishment without sinning?  You miss out on feeling good about yourself or anything you do.  If you take pride in your work, you are sinning.

I take pleasure in giving the credit to God. Considering that he gave me life and all my talents, he deserves the credit for the things I do. Also consider that we are co-heirs with Christ, and so will share in his glory.

What about loving your family more than you love God - another sin, right?  Isn't loving anything more than God a sin?  So you've got to curb your love of your family.

Not if you expand your love of God. Also, similar to the above point, God gave me my family. Seems rude to love the gift more than the giver.

Since you must love God more than you love yourself as well, you must believe you are a piece of crap because the Bible says you are.  How can you enjoy anything if you believe you are a worthless piece of crap?  Where is the pleasure in that?

The pleasure is in the grace God gives us.

Since most Christians go straight to sex when it comes to discussions of sin, then I'll go there.  Masturbation is considered a sin yet the majority of women require stimulation of the clitoris to orgasm.  The most effective way for that to happen is for the woman to stimulate her clitoris during intercourse.  So, in order to experience orgasm many women must either masturbate or have their spouses do it for them.  Why not put the clitoris closer to the vaginal opening rather than creating a frustrating anatomical difficulty which requires a sin for the sex act to be enjoyable?  Other effective methods of stimulating the clitoris during sex require the woman to be on top.  Such positions are not allowed in multiple Christian sects.

Can you support this Biblically? Traditional Jewish interpetation fo the law only requires that sex end in vaginal intercourse, and most any other acts are permitted prior.

Then there is the sin of lust.  If a man looks at a beautiful woman who isn't his wife and feels a tingle in his genitals he is sinning even he doesn't want to feel any tingles.  It's a sin to look at a person and take pleasure in their sexiness even if you would never approach them because the thought is exactly equal to acting inappropriately.  So, before you marry your wife-to-be you are sinning if you have sexual thoughts about her.  

To the extent that one controls this, the marital relationship and sexual relationship improves.

And then we have the problem of homosexuality.  Yeah, great, it's not a sin to have sex with a person of the opposite sex to whom you are married as long as you were married in a Christian church.  What pleasure does that give a homosexual person?  Everything they desire sexually is a sin in Christian eyes.  They can't even masturbate to curb their desire for the sex Christians consider sinful.  I was married to a gay man who was following those assertions that he's a useless, deviant piece of shit if he has any sexual feelings for anyone he isn't married to.  He's not.  He's a loving, beautiful man who made both our lives miserable by trying to be a good Christian.  And no, he didn't choose homosexuality, he fought it tooth and nail and hates himself with as great a depth as any good Christian homosexual is supposed to.  Why make a person who can't get pleasure from sex with women and then tell him he can have all the sex he wants so long as it's with someone he doesn't have any desire for?  

He didn't enjoy sex with you?

It seems to me that to be a good Christian you have to hate yourself and fight every natural urge and desire you have, many of which you have no conscious control over.

As noted above, there's a lot more to it than that.

[Voter]

You've just wasted hours of my time on something that you could have easily provided a source for.

That makes no sense. If it would have been easy for me, why did it take you hours? I was probably actually having sex - with toys and in wild positions - while you were looking stuff up. Seems like a better use of time. (Although sometimes what seemed like an hour was actually twenty minutes.)

[Kylyssa]

I take pleasure in giving the credit to God. Considering that he gave me life and all my talents, he deserves the credit for the things I do. Also consider that we are co-heirs with Christ, and so will share in his glory.

But you deserve only credit for things you do that go wrong, correct?  So you feel you are a giant screw up, incapable of doing any good, right?  You didn't do the good thing anyway, God was doing it and using you like a puppet.

Not if you expand your love of God. Also, similar to the above point, God gave me my family. Seems rude to love the gift more than the giver.

So, yes, it's a sin to love anything more than God.

The pleasure is in the grace God gives us.

So it's the only pleasure you are allowed, correct?  Just as I stated, only Jesus-based pleasures are allowed you.
 

Can you support this Biblically? Traditional Jewish interpetation fo the law only requires that sex end in vaginal intercourse, and most any other acts are permitted prior.

So you discount entirely the practices of mainstream Christianity?  

Then there is the sin of lust.  If a man looks at a beautiful woman who isn't his wife and feels a tingle in his genitals he is sinning even he doesn't want to feel any tingles.  It's a sin to look at a person and take pleasure in their sexiness even if you would never approach them because the thought is exactly equal to acting inappropriately.  So, before you marry your wife-to-be you are sinning if you have sexual thoughts about her.  

To the extent that one controls this, the marital relationship and sexual relationship improves.

So, it's a sin, right?  Otherwise why would you feel you have to control your lustful thoughts about your bride-to-be?
 

And then we have the problem of homosexuality.  Yeah, great, it's not a sin to have sex with a person of the opposite sex to whom you are married as long as you were married in a Christian church.  What pleasure does that give a homosexual person?  Everything they desire sexually is a sin in Christian eyes.  They can't even masturbate to curb their desire for the sex Christians consider sinful.  I was married to a gay man who was following those assertions that he's a useless, deviant piece of shit if he has any sexual feelings for anyone he isn't married to.  He's not.  He's a loving, beautiful man who made both our lives miserable by trying to be a good Christian.  And no, he didn't choose homosexuality, he fought it tooth and nail and hates himself with as great a depth as any good Christian homosexual is supposed to.  Why make a person who can't get pleasure from sex with women and then tell him he can have all the sex he wants so long as it's with someone he doesn't have any desire for?  

He didn't enjoy sex with you?

If "doing it" begrudgingly a few times a year for the first few years is liking it, I suppose he did.  However, he far prefers to indulge his natural inclinations.
 

It seems to me that to be a good Christian you have to hate yourself and fight every natural urge and desire you have, many of which you have no conscious control over.

As noted above, there's a lot more to it than that.

Right, you can have God based pleasures and no others.

[Kylyssa]

But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

...It being pleasurable? What more do you need?

I guess what I am trying to get out of the author of this thread is what exactly is a pleasure, because if almost all pleasures are sins...well I sin on a constant basis.

What, are my posts invisible?  How about reading my second post?  These threads have pages to them.  The posts that occur before the most recent one do not disappear, they are just sometimes on another page.    

Sin: Taking pride in your work.
Sin: Taking credit for good things you do.
Sin: Loving your family (or anyone) more than God.
Sin: Loving yourself (because God thinks you are a worthless sinner, how dare you disagree?)
Sin: Having any natural urges or desires.

Think of something enjoyable, anything - isn't it a sin unless you find a way to make it Jesus based?

[Davin]

You've just wasted hours of my time on something that you could have easily provided a source for.

That makes no sense. If it would have been easy for me, why did it take you hours? I was probably actually having sex - with toys and in wild positions - while you were looking stuff up. Seems like a better use of time. (Although sometimes what seemed like an hour was actually twenty minutes.)

Because you made the statement of fact then provided your source for making that statement. I guess you don't actually have the data and just made a baseless assertion.

[AnimatedDirt]

There's no (more) sin in BEING homosexual (vs heterosexual) or gay (considering the newest thread suggesting the word homosexual is now not PC) the sin is the act of sex between two same gender individuals. The mere fact that you cite this as "nontraditional" says something.

Not according to Matthew's quoting of Jesus:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

According to this passage, the sin is in the heart, not the genitalia.  You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

Exactly right.  You've just established my point using scripture.  There is no difference.  One is not worse than the other.

Sin: Taking pride in your work.
Sin: Taking credit for good things you do.
Sin: Loving your family (or anyone) more than God.
Sin: Loving yourself (because God thinks you are a worthless sinner, how dare you disagree?)
Sin: Having any natural urges or desires.

We can also credit sin to the sin nature;

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.  I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.  And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.  As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.  I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

and because this is so, God dosen't think we are worthless.

[Voter]

Because you made the statement of fact then provided your source for making that statement.[/quote]
Exactly. Your charge is nonsensical.

I guess you don't actually have the data and just made a baseless assertion.

No, I made an assertion based on the source that I provided.

[karadan]

Because the more miserable someone is, the more they'll cling to the hope that what is being offered to them by the church will eventually bring them happiness.

It's a sick catch 22.

[Voter]

I take pleasure in giving the credit to God. Considering that he gave me life and all my talents, he deserves the credit for the things I do. Also consider that we are co-heirs with Christ, and so will share in his glory.

But you deserve only credit for things you do that go wrong, correct?  So you feel you are a giant screw up, incapable of doing any good, right?  You didn't do the good thing anyway, God was doing it and using you like a puppet.

You just seem to be repeating yourself here. My above answer is still sufficient.

Not if you expand your love of God. Also, similar to the above point, God gave me my family. Seems rude to love the gift more than the giver.

So, yes, it's a sin to love anything more than God.

Yes, which does not preclude me from thepleasure of loving my family.

So it's the only pleasure you are allowed, correct?

No. I mentioned sex, sports, food & drink, etc.

Just as I stated, only Jesus-based pleasures are allowed you.

Incorrect, see last answer. (Unless you mean a pleasure is "Jesus-based" because Jesus is creator, and so all pleasures are Jesus-based from the Christian perspective, but that would be a trivial observation.)
 

So you discount entirely the practices of mainstream Christianity?  

No. I'm a mainstream Christian, and I don't follow your interpretation. I'm sure that, with two billion professing Christians, there are some that have restrictions you mention, but I've been in a lot of mainstream chuirches and never been told that only missionary position is acceptable. Our sex life is quite varied and rewarding.

Then there is the sin of lust.  If a man looks at a beautiful woman who isn't his wife and feels a tingle in his genitals he is sinning even he doesn't want to feel any tingles.  It's a sin to look at a person and take pleasure in their sexiness even if you would never approach them because the thought is exactly equal to acting inappropriately.  So, before you marry your wife-to-be you are sinning if you have sexual thoughts about her.  

To the extent that one controls this, the marital relationship and sexual relationship improves.

So, it's a sin, right?[/quote]
Yes, this one is, but as noted this restraint can lead to even greater pleasure. Most women don't like their men leering at other women or viewing pornography.  

If "doing it" begrudgingly a few times a year for the first few years is liking it, I suppose he did.  However, he far prefers to indulge his natural inclinations.

This speaks to my last point. If he trained himself to think less about others and more about you, your sex life would have improved.

It seems to me that to be a good Christian you have to hate yourself and fight every natural urge and desire you have, many of which you have no conscious control over.

Your understanding is incorrect. A good Christian typically loves himself because God finds him lovable (I think AD said something similar). As to natural urges, yes, we have to limit them, but that's not specific to Christianity. An atheist noted that the 7 deadly sins are generally seen as harmful in the secular world as well.

Right, you can have God based pleasures and no others.

I'm not thinking of God during sex, although I might say a prayer of thanks afterward.

[Davin]

No, I made an assertion based on the source that I provided.

A source without a basis, hence a baseless assertion.

[Voter]

Because the more miserable someone is, the more they'll cling to the hope that what is being offered to them by the church will eventually bring them happiness.

It's a sick catch 22.

Hardly. Religious people are already more happy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness# ... _happiness
Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[29] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[30] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[31] A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[32] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[33]

[Voter]

No, I made an assertion based on the source that I provided.

A source without a basis, hence a baseless assertion.

Check out the wiki link and quote above, which report that the religious have a higher level of sexual satisfaction.

[Davin]

No, I made an assertion based on the source that I provided.

A source without a basis, hence a baseless assertion.

Check out the wiki link and quote above, which report that the religious have a higher level of sexual satisfaction.

Which has nothing to do with this:

Ideally, you will only have one, opposite sex, partner for life to have sex with, and you have to wait until marriage to do so.

And those people report high satisfaction with their sex lives.

Still leaving you with an uncorrected baseless assertion.

[Davin]

Hardly. Religious people are already more happy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness# ... _happiness
Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[29] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[30] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[31] A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[32] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[33]

And just a little farther down:

According to a 2007 paper by Liesbeth Snoep, published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, there is no significant correlation between religiosity and individual happiness when researchers measure Religion in the Netherlands and Denmark. These countries have lower rates of religious affiliation than the United States, meaning the non-religious are not the vast minority - a fact that Snoep thinks might help explain the different correlations.[34] According to the Gallup World Poll survey conducted between 2005 and 2009 Denmark is the happiest country in the world, and the Netherlands rank fourth.[35]